sign in sign up
<<
Home , Daniel Ellsberg, Eugene Rabinowitch, Linus Pauling

IT IS 5 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

®

Feature Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 2015, Vol. 71(1) 59–69 ! The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: Out of the nuclear shadow: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0096340214563680 Scientists and the struggle http://thebulletin.sagepub.com against the Bomb

Zia Mian

Abstract In this essay, adapted from his 2014 Legacy Award Lecture, Zia Mian, from Princeton UniversityÕs Program on Science and Global Security, argues that the ideas Nobel laureate Linus Pauling and other scientists struggled hard over the decades to teach the world have now become widely accepted: The world understands the danger of nuclear weapons. But in the essay, Mian argues that absent an aroused and insistent public demanding an end to nuclear weapons, which the early scientists believed was necessary to curb the nuclear danger, the prospects for in the foreseeable future appear grim. He concludes: ÒThis is where the scientist has to step aside and the citizen has to step forward.Ó

Keywords , Cold War history, Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists, , , Frank von Hippel, International Panel on Fissile Materials, Leo Szilard, Linus Pauling, Pugwash

his past year marked the 20th Pauling protested on the following day anniversary of the death of Linus also, and then went in to the White House T Pauling, a -winning state dinner for 49 Nobel Prize winners to American scientist and a key figure in which he had been invited by President the global movement to abolish nuclear John F. Kennedy. Pauling, who had won weapons. The history of this movement, the 1954 Nobel Prize for , may and PaulingÕs role in it, is documented in have been the only one of the 49 Nobel the remarkable three-volume series Prize winners who was in the . The Struggle against the Bomb (Wittner, Eighteen months later, Kennedy 1993, 1997, 2003). signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty, One of the most well-known photo- and Pauling subsequently received the graphs of Pauling shows him in his in 1963 for his contri- shirtsleeves, carrying a banner as part of bution to achieving the treaty. It made a mass protest at the White House. The Pauling the only person to win two photo is from April 28, 1962 and was part undivided Nobel Prizes. of a campaign against the resumption of Everyone who does so has his or her atmospheric . reasons for joining the struggle against

Downloaded from bos.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 7, 2016 60 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(1) the Bomb. Twenty years after his Nobel a weapon by which he could destroy the Peace Prize, Pauling explained why he Earth if he choseÓ (Soddy, 1904: 251”252). had spent so many years writing, speak- It took 30 years before someone ing out, organizing scientists around the worked out the nature of the lever that world to sign public petitions, and join- Soddy had imagined could control the ing in : release of atomic energy. It was Leo Szi- lard, a Hungarian Jewish physicist who All human beings, all citizens, have a responsi- studied in Germany and ended up as a bility for doing their part in the democratic refugee in the United States, living for process. But almost every issue has some sci- entific aspect to it, and this one of nuclear war, some time in Princeton. SzilardÕs life or war in general, is of course very much a has been chronicled in Genius in the matter of science. (Kreisler, 1983: 7) Shadows (Lanouette, 1992). In 1933, while crossing the street in This meant, as Pauling put it, Òthat sci- London, Szilard came up with the idea entists have a special responsibility.Ó of a nuclear chain reaction that in his words could Òliberate energy on an The future in their bones industrial scale, and construct atomic bombsÓ (Rhodes, 1986: 28). The idea The scientist has Òthe future in their was simple. He imagined an atom bones,Ó declared the British undergoing a nuclear reaction that pro- and writer C. P. Snow in his 1959 lecture duced neutrons and that these neutrons at Cambridge University ÒThe Two would in turn induce other similar atoms CulturesÓ (Snow, 1959). If this is true, to undergo the same reaction and pro- then the fear of nuclear weapons has duce another set of neutrons and so been in the bones of scientists for over cause a cascade of such reactions. a hundred years. Understanding the potentially terrible Soon after Henri Becquerel dis- implications of his discovery, Szilard covered radioactivity in 1896, Marie tried to keep it a secret. He also knew it and Pierre Curie found that it was a prop- was only a matter of time until other erty of the atom and possibly atomic scientists discovered the idea. In other atoms. Then, in 1901, Frederick 1936, he suggested the need for Òa con- Soddy and showed spiracy of those scientists who work in that radioactivity was part of the process this fieldÓ (Wittner, 1993: 6). by which atoms changed from one kind Szilard tried to convince other key to another and involved the release of scientists who were working on the energy. It was not long until Soddy and problem to not publish their work in sci- other scientists began to suggest atomic entific journals. In his letters to them, he energy could be used to make fearsome warned that if there was progress on the weapons. discovery of a nuclear chain reaction and In 1903, less than a decade after this work became public, Òthis might BecquerelÕs discovery, Soddy warned: then to the construction of bombs ÒThe man who put his hand on the lever which would be extremely dangerous by which a parsimonious nature regu- in general and particularly in the hands lates so jealously the output of this of certain governmentsÓ (Lanouette, store of [atomic] energy would possess 1992: 182).

Downloaded from bos.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 7, 2016 Mian 61

But other physicists did not agree. but it will probably cover the center of a In March and April 1939 papers were big city.Ó published showing that when a neutron They also pointed out that: caused the fission of a nucleus of uranium, along with releasing energy it some part of the energy set free by the bomb created more neutrons which could in goes to produce radioactive substances, and these will emit very powerful and danger- principle then cause other nuclei of ous radiations ...Even for days after the explo- uranium to fission, producing a runaway sion any person entering the affected area will nuclear chain reaction. be killed. Some of this radioactivity will be car- Szilard later reflected that there was ried along with the wind and will spread the con- tamination; several miles downwind this may Òvery little doubt in my mind that the kill people. (Frisch and Peierls, 1940) world was headed for griefÓ (Wittner, 1993: 7). Finally, they explained in their memo Sleepless nights that Òowing to the spread of radioactive substances with the wind, the bomb When Szilard had worried in the late could probably not be used without kill- 1930s about the construction of nuclear ing large numbers of civilians, and this weapons, he had in mind the Nazis in may make it unsuitable as a weapon for Germany. In March 1939, the German use by this country.Ó armies invaded Czechoslovakia and the It was a stunningly accurate analysis world plunged into war. of the physical effects of a nuclear By 1940, physicists were starting to weapon. also pointed out understand what might be involved in the core moral and political challenge of building a , and what building a bomb with such large-scale the effects of such a weapon might be. and indiscriminate effects. It was a har- Working together in England, two rowing insight. And the whole thing was German physicists, Otto Frisch and kept secret from the public. Rudolf Peierls, wrote a memorandum to The Frisch-Peierls memo of 1940 led the British government called, omin- to the establishment of BritainÕs nuclear ously, ÒOn the Construction of a ÔSuper- weapons program. Among the people bombÕÓ (Frisch and Peierls, 1940). involved in the program was James In this memo, they described the Chadwick, the discoverer of the neutron, basic principle of building a simple nu- the particle that makes the nuclear chain clear weapon from uranium. They reaction possible. argued that it was quite conceivable that Many years later, Chadwick recalled Germany was developing such a weapon what happened in the spring of 1941 when andproposedtotheBritishgovernment he realized that a nuclear weapon was a that Òthe most effective reply would be a real possibility. He told an interviewer: counter-threat with a similar bomb.Ó In their memo, Frisch and Peierls I remember ...to this day ...I had many sleep- imagined what an atomic bomb could less nights ...And I had then to start taking sleeping pills. It was the only remedy. IÕve do:ÒTheblastfromsuchanexplosion never stopped since then. ItÕs 28 years, and I woulddestroylifeinawidearea.The donÕt think IÕve missed a single night in all size of this area is difficult to estimate, those 28 years. (Weiner, 1969)

Downloaded from bos.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 7, 2016 62 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(1)

Britain did not have the resources to for the safety of this country as well as for the carry the atomic bomb program forward, future of all the other nations, of which the rest of mankind is unaware. We therefore felt it our so it reached out to the United States. duty to urge that the political problems, arising Soon the , a vast from the mastering of atomic power, be recog- secret scientific, technological, military, nized in all their gravity, and that appropri- and bureaucratic complex emerged. A ate steps be taken for their study and the preparation of necessary decisions. (Franck total of 600,000 people worked on the et al., 1945) bomb project, with as many as 160,000 active at one time. There were mines, laboratories, and factories in 39 Ameri- The scientists observed: can states, and related facilities in Canada and Africa. It was so secret Con- [I]n the past, science has often been able to gress did not know about it. provide adequate protection against new weapons it has given into the hands of an As work on the Bomb progressed, aggressor, but it cannot promise such efficient leading scientists continued to warn protection against the destructive use of policy makers at the highest levels of . This protection can only the coming danger. After a tour of the come from the political organization of the world ...In the absence of an international Manhattan Project in 1944, the great authority which would make all resort to Danish physicist , who had force in international conflicts impossible, shaped our modern understanding of nations could still be diverted from a path the atom, warned President Franklin D. which must lead to total mutual destruction, by a specific international agreement barring Roosevelt of the long-term dangers of a nuclear armaments race. nuclear weapons. Bohr advised Roosevelt that Òany temporary advantage [that may come The scientistsÕ words fell on deaf ears. because of having nuclear weapons], Many years later, Eugene Rabinowitch, however great, may be outweighed by a one of the signatories to the Franck perpetual menace to human securityÓ Report, regretted not having gone (Bohr, 1944: 106). Again, the private public with the scientistsÕ concern. advice was ignored. In 1971, in a letter to The New York The scientists tried again in June 1945, Times, Rabinowitch wrote: a month before the first nuclear weapon was tested. Led by Nobel laureate James Before the atom bomb-drops on Hiroshima and Franck, a group based in that Nagasaki, I had spent sleepless nights thinking that I should reveal to the American people, per- included Szilard explained the nuclear haps through a reputable news organ, the fateful dilemma in a secret memo to the US sec- actÑthe first introduction of atomic weap- retary of war. The memo known as the onsÑwhich the US Government planned to Franck Report begins: carry out without consultation with its people. Twenty-five years later, I feel I would have been right if I had done so. (Rabinowitch, 1971) The scientists on this project do not presume to speak authoritatively on problems of national and international policy. However, we found ourselves, by the force of events, The trigger for RabinowitchÕs letter the last five years in the position of a small was the leaking of Papers group of citizens cognizant of a grave danger on the by .

Downloaded from bos.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 7, 2016 Mian 63

We scientists recognize our inescapable The most gloomy responsibility to carry to our fellow citizens an understanding of the simple facts of There was good reason for atomic energy and its implications for society. RabinowitchÕs regrets. In his first official In this lies our only security and our only statement after the atomic bombing of hopeÑwe believe that an informed citizenry Hiroshima, President Harry Truman will act for life and not for death. (Einstein, 1946) claimed the new weapon as a military breakthrough, a scientific marvel, and a uniquely American achievement. And, Put simply, for the scientists only an despite the warnings of the Chicago sci- informed and active could entists, the White House declared the save humanity from nuclear disaster. Bomb to be an American secret. The scientists sought both to educate In 1946, Szilard joined with Pauling, their fellow citizens of the nuclear Albert Einstein, and others to create an dangers and at the same time took Emergency Committee of Atomic Scien- action themselves as citizens in their tists to educate the public about the dan- own right. gers of nuclear weapons and the coming There was reason to be hopeful. The nuclear arms race. (Key papers of the had just been established Emergency Committee of Atomic Scien- with the express purpose, according to tists are available at the Oregon State the charter, being Òto save succeeding University LibrariesÕ Special Collections generations from the scourge of warÓ & Archives Research Center and some (United Nations, 1945). are online at its web page ÒDear Profes- The UN Charter explicitly called upon sor Einstein: The Emergency Committee all its member states to Òrefrain in their of Atomic Scientists in Post-War international relations from the threat or America.Ó) use of forceÓ against each other. On January 22, 1947, they issued a The very first resolution of the United famous letter. It can be seen as marking Nations General Assembly, Resolution the end of one era and the start of another 1.1., passed in January 1946, established a in the relationship between scientists, commission to draw up a plan Òfor the governments, and people on the issue elimination from national armaments of of nuclear weapons. The letter has atomic weapons.Ó become a manifesto of sorts for the gen- This was the vision outlined by James erations of scientists who have struggled Franck, Leo Szilard, and the other Chi- against the Bomb. The letter is very cago scientists who supported an inter- short. It says, in part: national authority that would end the resort to force by states and ban Through the release of atomic energy, our gen- nuclear weapons. eration has brought into the world the most But the United States was not willing to revolutionary force since prehistoric manÕs dis- covery of fire. This basic power of the universe give up its monopoly on nuclear weapons, cannot be fitted into the outmoded concept of and the was not willing to narrow nationalisms. For there is no secret and give up its right to make such weapons there is no defense; there is no possibility of con- as long as the US had them. Instead of trol except through the aroused understanding and insistence of the peoples of the world. the United Nations having control of

Downloaded from bos.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 7, 2016 64 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(1) nuclear technology, the world was to be danger to humanity as a whole. It is shaped by the Cold War and the nuclear necessarily an evil thing considered in arms race. any lightÓ (p. 161). It did not take long before the Soviet This last great effort by the atomic sci- Union caught up with the United States. entists to try and shape government In August 1949, the Soviet Union deto- policy from the inside and so limit the nated its first atomic bomb. There was a danger to humanity failed. The commit- secret debate within the US government teeÕs findings were ignored. The United about what should be the appropriate States launched an urgent program to response to the Soviet atomic bomb test, build the bomb. The report in particular whether the United States itself was kept secret. It was not declas- should pursue the development of an sified until 1974. even more powerful bomb, a hydrogen The world soon came to know of the bomb based on thermonuclear fusion. dangers of the hydrogen bomb, despite The US government committee that the secrecy. In March 1954, the United was set up to consider the possibility of States carried out the Bravo thermo- a hydrogen bomb included some of the nuclear test at Bikini Atoll in the Pacific. scientists who had built the first atomic It had an explosive power equivalent to bomb, among them Robert Oppen- 15 million tons of TNT, a thousand times heimer, the Italian physicist Enrico bigger than the Hiroshima bomb. Fermi, and Polish scientist I. I. Rabi. The explosion produced radioactive The discussions were highly secret. fallout that traveled a hundred miles. The committee concluded that the It affected hundreds of inhabitants of hydrogen bomb could probably be built the Marshall Islands and the crew of the within five years, but advised against it. Japanese fishing boat Lucky Dragon. The committee argued that Òit is clear One of the crew later died from radiation that the use of this weapon would bring poisoning. about the destruction of innumerable It was against this background that in human lives ...Its use therefore carries July 1955, Einstein, Pauling, Joseph Rot- much further than the atomic bomb blat (who received the Linus Pauling itself the policy of exterminating civilian Legacy Award in 2003), and other scien- populationsÓ (General Advisory Com- tists founded the Pugwash movement. mittee, 1949: 158). The founding declaration of Pugwash, The majority view of the committee known as the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, was that the use of the hydrogen bomb showed that the scientists were more Òwould involve a decision to slaughter a troubled than ever. The declaration vast number of civilians.Ó This kind of observed that: bomb could become a Òweapon of geno- cide,Ó they warned (p. 160). the general public, and even many men in pos- The minority view on the committee ition of authority, have not realized what would be involved in a war with nuclear was that this statement did not go bombs ...The best authorities are unanimous far enough. They argued, ÒThe fact that in saying that a war with H-bombs might quite no limits exist to the destructiveness of possibly put an end to the human race ...We this weapon makes its very existence and have found that the men who know most are the most gloomy. (Butcher, 2005: 25”26) the knowledge of its construction a

Downloaded from bos.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 7, 2016 Mian 65

The scientists may have been gloomy The leaders of the two superpowers but they were not dismayed. They were agreed in effect to end the arms race soon at the forefront of the campaign and shared a vision of a world free of against nuclear weapon testing and in nuclear weapons. It marked the begin- efforts to restrain the nuclear arms ning of the end of the Cold War. race. These efforts had big ups and downs, but when the efforts of the scien- Prospects tists merged with and supported large public anti-nuclear peace movements Where are we now, some 30 years later? there was some success. Sadly, there are reasons to be gloomy. Even leading insider scientists even- The Cold War came and went. The tually understood the need for a peace number of nuclear weapons has fallen movement and public participation. dramatically. But the Bomb has remained. The most interesting example perhaps The 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban was , the senior Treaty bans all nuclear weapons testing. Manhattan Project scientist who served But the United States has signed but not as science advisor to President Eisen- ratified this treaty. The US nuclear weap- hower and advised several subsequent ons test site at Nevada is kept ready to administrations. resume testing. Russia has signed and In the early 1980s, reflecting back on ratified the treaty, as have Britain and his years of service as a scientific insider France, but has signed but not and advisor, Kistiakowsky wrote: ratified and says it will only do so once ÒForget the [inside] channels. There the United States ratifies. Apart from the simply is not enough time left before United States and China, the other key the world explodes. Concentrate instead nuclear weapon state holdouts are on organizing, with so many others who , Pakistan, Israel, and . are of like mind, a mass movement for There has also been limited progress peace such as there has not been beforeÓ in ending the production of (Kistiakowsky, 1982: 3). and highly enriched uranium for nuclear The last such mass movement that weapons. These are the materials that worked in alliance with the scientists undergo the chain reaction and make was in the 1980s. It brought together the nuclear weapons possible. The good Nuclear Freeze movement in the United news is that most of the nuclear States with the nuclear disarmament weapon states have ended their produc- movements in Western Europe and scien- tion of these materials for weapons pur- tists in the West and in the Soviet Union. poses. Today, only India, Pakistan, Israel, The millions of people who took to the and North Korea are still producing streets were an amazing demonstration these fissile materials for weapons. of what the scientists had hoped for: the But it has now been 20 years since the Òaroused understanding and insistence of United Nations General Assembly man- the peoples of the world,Ó pushing back dated negotiations on an international against the nuclear danger. treaty to ban the production of fissile One result of this movement was the materials for nuclear weapons. Efforts 1986 summit in Reykjavik between to start these talks have stalled. For the and . last decade in particular, the obstacle to

Downloaded from bos.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 7, 2016 66 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(1) beginning the talks has been Pakistan. part of this effort, the Obama administra- But this obstruction has been possible tion has announced plans to spend $355 only because the United States has billion over the next decade on nuclear decided that the most important issue weapons. In terms of annual spending, in dealing with Pakistan is the war this will be on the scale of peak nuclear against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. weapon spending during the Cold War. The situation is not hopeless. The The modernization will cover replac- International Panel on Fissile Materials, ing US land-based and submarine-based of which I am a member, was founded in nuclear missiles, and nuclear cruise mis- 2006. It brings together scientists, policy siles, as well as building next generation experts, and former diplomats from 18 submarines and nuclear bombers and countries to provide and support the upgrading the nuclear weapons. It may technical basis for policy initiatives to cost a total of about $1 trillion over the reduce global stockpiles of highly next 30 years. enriched uranium and plutonium. The new systems are expected to enter The driving force behind the panel is service sometime around 2030. They may Frank von Hippel, a physicist and profes- last for at least 40 or 50 years. This is how sor of public and international affairs old some of the current systems are, and at Princeton. He is the quintessential they are not yet ready for retirement. American citizen-scientist (and a grand- If this policy prevails, the US will have son of ). Like Pauling, Frank operational nuclear missiles at least until von Hippel is in his element writing the year 2080. The world will be prepar- academic papers as well as op-eds, brief- ing to celebrate Linus PaulingÕs 180th ing policy makers around the world, birthday. and standing in a demonstration with a Some American politicians are placard in his hand. already thinking on this timescale. In Under his leadership, the panel tries to 2010, speaking as the secretary of state, explain to policy makers and the public Hillary Clinton declared, ÒOur goal that the control and elimination of fissile [is] of a world someday, in some materials is critical to nuclear weapons century, free of nuclear weaponsÓ (Clin- disarmament, to halting the proliferation ton, 2010). of nuclear weapons, and to ensuring that Secretary of State John Kerry echoed terrorists do not acquire nuclear this perspective during his confirmation weapons. hearings in 2013. Asked about eliminating We have drafted a fissile material nuclear weapons, Kerry said, ÒIt is worth cutoff treaty. It is now an official aspiring to, but we will be lucky if we get United Nations document and could be there in however many centuries the way a basis for negotiationsÑwhen policy we are goingÓ (Kerry, 2013: 21). makers are ready. When policy makers talk of a world In the longer term, however, the pro- free of nuclear weapons coming to pass spects frankly are grim, rather than Òsomeday, in some century,Ó or in merely gloomy. Òhowever many centuries,Ó they may as The US is committed to a massive, well say nuclear weapons are here to long-term modernization of its nuclear stay forever. Nuclear weapons may complex and its nuclear weapons. As become, in Niels BohrÕs luminous phrase

Downloaded from bos.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 7, 2016 Mian 67 from 1944, a Òperpetual menace to human increasingly wrapped up in the great securityÓ (p. 106). competition between the United States It seems unimaginable that nuclear and China for dominance in the coming weapons can remain indefinitely in the century. arsenals of the great powersÑand in the The United States is seeking to recruit arsenals of India, Israel, Pakistan, and India as a strategic ally to balance the North KoreaÑand not be used one day. rise of China. For its part, China is build- The danger may be greatest in South ing up its long-standing ally, Pakistan. Asia. Pakistan and India are building up The four countries are tied together in their nuclear arsenals as fast as they can. an ever-tightening knot of insecurities, India is testing its first nuclear-powered expectations, arms racing, and war submarine to carry nuclear-armed mis- planning. siles. Pakistan is testing short-range There is reason to believe nuclear war battlefield nuclear weapons. in South Asia could have devastating Nuclear nationalism is strong in Paki- global consequences. Scientists Alan stan and India. For many, the Bomb is Robock and Brian Toon and others still a new and wondrous thing, a have used modern climate models to symbol of national power and strength. explore the large-scale, long-term effects But even in South Asia there are scien- of a limited nuclear war between Paki- tists struggling against the Bomb stan and India. (Hoodbhoy, 2013; Nayyar, 2014). It is a They looked at what would happen if struggle against desperate odds and one India and Pakistan used 50 Hiroshima- that would have been familiar to Pauling. sized weapons each. The targets were For almost 30 years, Pakistani physi- assumed to be cities in the other country. cists Pervez Hoodbhoy and Abdul The models showed that the smoke from Hameed Nayyar have been warning their the burning cities would rise high into fellow citizens of the grave dangers of the atmosphere, covering the globe and going nuclear. They have been denounced darkening the sky. as traitors and as agents of foreign powers, The absorption of sunlight by the labels that were once applied to Pauling. smoke and soot would trigger global cool- They have Indian colleagues. The most ing that could persist for more than 25 notable are M. V. Ramana and Ramamurti years. Average surface temperatures Rajaraman, who shared the American would fall to their coldest in the last Physical SocietyÕs 2014 Leo Szilard Award 1,000 years. There would also be world- for their efforts to highlight the risks of wide ozone loss. The combination of pro- nuclear weapons and nuclear energy pro- longed cooling and ozone loss could grams and to promote peace and security devastate food supplies around the world. in South Asia. I have been fortunate to The most recent study concludes, ÒIt is work with all of them over the years as conceivable that the global pressures on part of the program we have at Princeton food supplies from a regional nuclear University. conflict could, directly or via ensuing The situation in South Asia is becom- panic, significantly degrade global food ing more perilous with each passing security or even produce a global nuclear year. Pakistan and India are arming them- famineÓ (Mills et al., 2014: 14). It is a selves and at the same time becoming terrifying forecast.

Downloaded from bos.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 7, 2016 68 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(1)

At the same time, there are signs of Editor’s note the political will in many countries to This article is adapted from the authorÕs Linus Pauling seek nuclear disarmament. In 2013, Legacy Award Lecture, given on April 21, 2014 in Port- 128 states together with the Red Cross land, Oregon. Movement, United Nations agencies, and civil society gathered in Oslo at a Funding Conference on the Humanitarian Impact This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not- of Nuclear Weapons. There was a follow- for-profit sectors. up conference in February 2014, in Mexico, in which 146 countries partici- References pated. The third conference in this Bohr N (1944) Memorandum to President Roosevelt, series, held in Vienna in December 2014, July 3, 1944. In: Aaserud F (ed.) Niels brought together representatives from BohrÑCollected Works, Vol. 11: The Political 158 countries. Arena (1934”1961). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 101”108. The goal in all these meetings was to Butcher SI (2005) The Origins of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto. Pugwash History Series No. 1. Pugwash remind the world of the catastrophic Conferences on Science and World Affairs. effects of nuclear weapons use. A princi- Available at: http://pugwashconferences.files. pal finding of the Vienna conference was wordpress.com/2014/02/2005_history_origins_ that: of_manifesto3.pdf. Clinton HR (2010) Remarks to members of the U.S. delegation to the New START negotiations and The impact of a nuclear weapon detonation, Nuclear Posture Review Department staff. July irrespective of the cause, would not be con- 13. Available at: http://www.state.gov/secretary/ strained by national borders and could have 20092013clinton/rm/2010/07/144577.htm. regional and even global consequences, caus- Einstein A (1946) Letter from the Emergency Com- ing destruction, death and displacement as mittee of Atomic Scientists, December 11. Avail- well as profound and long-term damage to able at: http://www.einsteinsworld.com/images/ the environment, climate, human health Einstein-TSL-1946-Dec-11-ECAS-Appeal-Rubber- and well-being, socioeconomic development, Stamp/Einstein-TSL-1946-ECAS-Appeal- social order and could even threaten the Rubber-Stamp-1024px.jpg. survival of humankind. (Federal Ministry for Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs, Affairs (2014) Report and Summary of Findings 2014: 1) of the Conference, Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, 8”9 December 2014. Available at: http:// Pauling, I believe, would have been www.bmeia.gv.at/en/european-foreign-policy/ delighted to see how the ideas that he disarmament/weapons-of-mass-destruction/ and other scientists struggled so hard to nuclear-weapons-and-nuclear-terrorism/vienna- teach the world have now become conference-on-the-humanitarian-impact-of- nuclear-weapons/chairs-summary. common sense to so many. In many Franck J, Hughes DJ, Nickson JJ, et al. (1945) Report of ways, the battle of ideas has been won. the Committee on Political and Social Problems The world understands the danger of (The Franck Report), , nuclear weapons. All we lack is the June 11. Available at: http://www.dannen.com/ decision/franck.html. aroused understanding and insistence of Frisch OR and Peierls R (1940) Memorandum on the the people of the United States and the properties of a radioactive super-bomb. Available world to demand an end to nuclear at: http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Begin/ weapons. This is where the scientist has FrischPeierls2.shtml. General Advisory Committee, United States Atomic to step aside and the citizen has to step Energy Commission (1949) Report on the ÒSuper,Ó forward. October 30. Reprinted in: York HF, The Advisors:

Downloaded from bos.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 7, 2016 Mian 69

Oppenheimer, Teller, and the Superbomb. Stanford, www.s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/2cultures/ CA: Press, pp. 153”162. Rede-lecture-2-cultures.pdf. Hoodbhoy P (ed.) (2013) Confronting the Bomb: Paki- Soddy F (1904) Radium. In: Moore AT (ed.) Profes- stani and Indian Scientists Speak Out. Karachi: sional Papers of the Corps of Royal Engineers, Oxford University Press. Vol 29. Chatham: Royal Engineers Institute. Kerry JF (2013) Nomination of John F. Kerry to be sec- United Nations (1945) Charter of the United Nations. retary of state. Hearing before the Committee on Available at: http://www.un.org/en/documents/ Foreign Relations, , January charter/index.shtml. 24. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ Weiner C (1969) Interview with Sir , CHRG-113shrg86451/pdf/CHRG-113shrg86451.pdf. April 20. Available at: http://www.aip.org/history/ Kistiakowsky GB (1982) The four anniversaries. ohilist/3974_4.html. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 38(10): 2”3. Wittner L (1993) The Struggle against the Bomb, Vol. 1: Available at: http://books.google.ca/books?id= Resisting the BombÑa History of the World jwoAAAAAMBAJ. Nuclear Disarmament Movement through 1953. Kreisler H (1983) The in historical Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. perspective: Conversation with Nobel laureate Wittner L (1997) Resisting the Bomb: A History of the Linus Pauling, January 18. Institute of Interna- World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, tional Studies, University of California, Berkeley. 1954”1970. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Available at: http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/ Press. conversations/Pauling/pauling-con0.html. Wittner L (2003) Toward Nuclear Abolition: A History Lanouette W (1992) Genius in the Shadows: A Biogra- of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, phy of Leo Szilard, the Man behind the Bomb. 1971”Present. Stanford, CA: Stanford University New York: Scribner. Press. Mills MJ, Toon OB, Lee-Taylor J, et al. (2014) Multidecadal global cooling and unprecedented ozone loss following a regional nuclear conflict. Author biography EarthÕs Future 2(4): 161”176. Available at: http:// climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/MillsNWeft224. Zia Mian is a physicist at Princeton Uni- pdf. versityÕs Program on Science and Global Nayyar AH (ed) (2014) Taqat ka Sarab (Illusion of Security. He is a founder member and as of Power). Lahore: Mashal Books. 2015 co-chair of the International Panel on Rabinowitch E (1971) Letter to the editor. New York Fissile Materials and co-author with Harold Times, June 28. Available at: http://timesmachine. Feiveson, Alexander Glaser, and Frank von nytimes.com/timesmachine/1971/06/28/ Hippel of Unmaking the Bomb: A Fissile Mate- 79671921.html?pageNumber=30. Rhodes R (1986) The Making of the Atomic Bomb. rial Approach to Nuclear Disarmament and New York: Simon & Schuster. Nonproliferation (MIT Press, 2014). Snow CP (1959) The two cultures. Rede Lecture, Cambridge University. Available at: http://

Downloaded from bos.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 7, 2016